>> Actually, I believe -- I'm willing to be corrected -- that we do *not* >> talk about participants' evaluations of patent claims, and we shut >> those discussions down if they happen. > > If an IPR claim is filed on an internet-draft, I think a working group > participant saying something like "I still plan to implement this, as I see > $FOO and $BAR as demonstrating prior art." would be well within our process. > Preventing them from saying that because some other participant doesn't want > to hear about $FOO or $BAR seems like it grants a patent assertion way too > much power. > > Note that this does not in any way mean that other participants must come to > the same conclusion as the participant who mentions $FOO and $BAR. As you > note, they must come to their own conclusions. But I have certainly heard > multiple discussions of participants' evaluations of how specific claims > would or would not effect their choices, and I believe that these are > appropriate.
I agree with what you say -- I had interpreted your comment to refer to more involved and extensive discussion. And I think that Alissa's new text supports what you say above. Barry _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
